Jan 12, 2007

It’s easy to read the paper and come away with the idea that
those pesky minorities are screwing up things again, but that’s missing the point. The
point of the paper was to point out that there will be opposition to municipal
policies that are perceived to target a segment of
the population, while ignoring the larger problem. In other words,
if one demographic thinks they are being treated unfairly, they will rebel. In
Springfield, it was the targeting of car audio systems which was
perceived to affect minorities. In other communities, officials
have tried to implement policies to target loud motorcycles, which have
attracted opposition from a different demographic.

The second point that I’m trying to make is that municipalities
are having a very hard time dealing with noise issues. They
lack the funding, technical expertise, and resources to monitor
and limit excessive noise.

In Springfield’s case,
tensions
between the police
and the community have strained trust. Different neighborhoods
have different needs - as the police commissioner put it “no one lives
in Springfield.” Instead, residents live in
Forest Park, or
East Springfield
or Indian Orchard.

Cooperation between neighborhoods is basically nonexistent. When residents in Forest Park press for a crackdown on loud
car audio systems, residents in Indian Orchard (who are mainly concerned with motorcycle noise) or Pine Point (noise from bars)
have no reason to offer support. Only when city officials began to speak about noise in general terms did the opposition go away.

By and large, noise consultants in the USA don’t really address
community noise issues. Most of the research and consulting dollars
go toward solving transportation, construction, and architectural noise issues. Contrast this with
European cities which spend millions of dollars to investigate and mitigate
all types of noise sources. For example, much has been made of new
quiet dishwashers.
But appliance makers haven’t made these improvements
out of the goodness of their hearts; these improvements have been made so the manufacturers
can meet strict Euruopean regulations.

Until we get serious about this stuff in the states, we’re going to be stuck with the
same municpal noise problems.

One last comment - Les Bloomberg (NPC) has maintained that many of the
community noise problems we face today come from a lack of respect
that people have for their neighbors. During my research for the the paper,
I heard this sentiment from residents and business owners in various neighborhoods.
However, we must understand that we all have to be respectful:

I attended a Forest Park Community Policing
meeting last week. Police Commission Flynn spoke during the first
part of the meeting and most of the 70 or so residents had come to the meeting to
discuss both crime and quality-of-life issues like noise and vandelism. When Flynn finished speaking,
most of the attendees left. But as they left, they started to talk amongst themselves in the
meeting room, despite the fact that the meeting was not over. The meeting chair and
remaining attendees had to speak in raised voices so they could be heard over the clamor.

Essentially, the folks that were leaving decided that their need to talk to each other
was more important than the ongoing meeting. This isn’t much different
than the attitude of the punk who thinks that his need to listen to Mobb Deep in his car at 110 dBA
overrides our desire for peace and quiet. Respect is a two-way street, and if
residents want things to improve in our city, they better set an example.